Saturday, July 28, 2012

When
it comes to matters of morality, our main focus is on the human race.
We, theists and atheists alike, expect humans to behave in an
ethically responsible manner. Ethics, in its most simplistic form,
can be summed up as and divided into two levels: There are actions
that increase happiness, peace and harmony, and others that decrease
them or have opposite effects, such as sadness, pain and suffering.

Again, this is at its simplest form since I am fully aware that certain
actions may be blessings
in disguise
in the sense that they seem to foster happiness when, in fact, they
are destructive and vice versa. For example, we may smother a child
with love and rob their independent functioning in the outside world,
or we may punish and discipline them and they might suffer for a
while, but the benefits will eventually outweigh the negatives.
Incidentally, the ideal would be a harmonious balance between the
two.

Morality is mostly a relative issue and in some cases, we may commit
certain “bad” acts for ultimately “better” benefits, the
famous and controversial Machiavellian means
justifying the end.
I am not going into details on this point now but just want to underscore that absolute statements about morality, more often than not,
lead to a dead end, a cul-de-sac.

However,
animals seem to be exempt from those moral standards. Not that they
lack mental and rational functioning - in fact, I believe animals to
be generally more capable than what we give them credit for - but
because their “world” is quite different from ours. In order to
survive they must kill to eat. Animals do not have the moral choice
of becoming a vegetarian or cannot calculate their calories or how
much protein they need to consume to function on a day-to-day basis.

In
addition, there is no private property, there are no laws, except the
all-embracing “law of the jungle.” One of our main sticky points
that fills up tabloid papers and divorce court rooms is the matter of
sexuality and its (supposed?) link to morality. Animals act more on
their instincts than we do because if we did, we would get into
trouble.

From
an evolutionary perspective, we can say that morality was necessary
for our own survival but more importantly for the survival of our
species and civilization. From a religious point of view, at least
from a Christian perspective, it is the decree of God to reach
eternal salvation through an ominous and mysterious mix between faith
and morality, though bizarrely in some cases the former can override
the latter.

My
argument, however, is the following. I fully support morality from
the bottom of my heart, and I think it is the necessary link or glue
between religions and philosophies (sorry, Hedonism or your distant
cousin Nihilism). We need to behave in a responsible and respectful
manner toward ourselves, each other and our environment. Yet I
believe that morality and spirituality are not as compatible as they
appear to be.

Let
me explain. Morality - being good and leading a good life - can lead
to the realization of spirituality, call it the awakening of the
divine or God. So morality brings us closer to the Almighty or the
powers that be. But our problem lies in the fact that we expect this
special entity to be the same as us and to have the same conceptions
of morality. There is a serious case of anthropomorphic bias here.

Why
should higher levels of spirituality be held accountable to and limited by the rules
of the lower level? It is like animals insisting and demanding to
follow the law of the jungle. In my view, morality may lead to God
but breaks down on that level and becomes, from an enlightened point
of view, merely the babble of an infant.

I
am speaking of the unspeakable and ineffable place sometimes referred
to as TAO. Our human conception and understanding of the world may
merely be a stepping stone to higher dimensions. Look at our tiny
earth in proportion to the universe, and then we claim to have it all
figured out! We are the anthill in front of a skyscraper and expect
the latter to conform to our limited views and perspective.

If, as I
am claiming, spirituality can
be exempt from morality, or rather follow other rules and dictates
than the ones that exist for us, then a lot of conceptual problems
about ethics can be resolved, to some degree at least.

For
example, the problem of evil would not be an issue anymore. God will
not be omni-benevolent in a human sense. So the pain and suffering
exist for a reason beyond our grasp. Christianity has tried to
explain it in the form of free will, that we are to be blamed for it,
but that argument loses steam when we talk about children being
exposed to suffering. Original Sin or the Fall of Eden story just
won't suffice to explain this fact. Christians also use the phrase
that the Lord works in mysterious ways but that is saying nothing and
everything at the same time.

The
second problem that this view would resolve is the issue of
determinism. To have morality at all, we need to be aware and held
accountable for our own actions. A person who is mentally ill cannot
necessarily judge right from wrong (though some may fake it to get
out of prison). But let us look at it with a concrete example. If I
get intoxicated, get drunk or high and commit a horrible deed under
the influence, say kill someone, I may not be directly responsible
for the act since it was most likely not premeditated or planned,
but at least I am responsible in the sense that I chose to get
intoxicated.

Now
let us add a twist to it. What if somebody against my will and
knowledge spikes my drink with a certain substance that leads to the
consequent murder. Now I was not aware of what I was doing and cannot
be held responsible for my actions. And let us add that the guy who
spiked my drink was not even invited to the party!

This
would also solve a personal dilemma I have with morality. What if,
and I am influenced by deterministic philosophy here, we do not have
free will or a choice at all. We do not choose our genes nor our
parents nor our place of birth and have rather limited control over
our experiences in daily life. What if some of us are simply born with a
brain defect that makes us relish evil acts and blocks the circuit to
our sense of compassion.

While,
on the other side of the spectrum, there would be people who have
the “privilege” of being born and bred with love and goodness all
around them. Can we really blame or reward the one over the other?
Does the other lose all their spirituality and often their humanity
as a result of matters outside of their control? Is that a just way
of seeing the world, of judging people? I believe in my idealistic
heart that no one in their right mind would want to purposely hurt or
cause suffering to others.

So
let us bring it all together now. Morality and spirituality may be
cousins, but they are not one and the same. In other words, a person
who may act in evil ways still contains that level of spirituality
whether he knows it or no, whether he acts upon it or not. This is, I
must admit, a very Buddhist understanding of human nature, but it
helps us explain that everything is spiritual due to the fact of its
mere existence.

It
is a hopeful view that perhaps one day hatred will be eliminated and
that there is a level where the accuser and accused, the perpetrator
and the victim can hug each other and can talk about their
experiences over afterlife-coffee, free of physical or emotional
turmoil. Yes,
remember those days on earth.
I am
sorry for what I did.
Oh,
you don't have to be.
It's
not really your fault after all.

No
hellfire, no purgatory, only idle chat about a life of illusion that
occurred eons ago on a distant planet called earth.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

The
power of media is undisputed. It has far reaching effects on our
psyche and influences our thoughts and perceptions in both conscious
and subconscious ways. The problem is that media is not only all
around us but its stance is quite often reinforced by us. Although
media is an overarching term and there are better and worse fountains
of knowledge to quench one's thirst with (BBC vs Fox respectively)
the fact is that media, regardless of its reliability, rides a common
current.

Apart
from a sensationalist perspective that has the heavy tendency to
overemphasize the bad over the good hence giving an extremely bleak
view of humanity, media is also very topical in nature. For example,
over the past decade or so and with increasing vehemence, terrorism
has become the major focal point. In other words, the bearded
fundamentalist Islamic fellow has been more often than not in the
news and has become a staple footage of most media, reliable or not.

There
have been other faces in the past. They are usually portrayed as
dangerous, a threat to freedom and democracy. In the heyday of media,
the face that appeared in the newspaper headlines was the painted and
feathered native Indian. Their so-called savagery and bellicose
attitude was contrasted with the civilized and peaceful lifestyle of
the settlers. The fight of the settlers was naturally one of
territory but in the minds of most people of the era (and even
today!) it was a moral matter, namely a fight between the
goodhearted religious folk, of earnest cowboys and cavalry against
the so-called cruel and blood-thirsty Indian.

Then
the media shifted its attention -- that is once the threat had been
neutralized
-- and the focus became the black man. The African American was
subjected (and again in many ways still is) to a case of negative
stereotyping. Both poverty and crime were blamed on them, mainly due
to a disproportionate attention on colored criminals along with some
Hollywood typecasting.

The
fear of the black man became a naturally occurring and reinforced
reaction regardless of the issue of racism. You may be an open-minded
person but you would still carry around the conditioned fear and
mistrust within you. Just imagine you, a white person, walking down a
dark and empty street and a colored man walks towards you. That
moment you would probably prefer running into a white person although
you swear that some of your best friends are black.

The
next common international enemy was a more complex matter because it
defied the perimeters of race. Although stereotypically they would be
Eastern Europeans with an obviously thick accent and terrible fashion
sense and haircuts, their ideas were seen as more contagious and
hence much more potent and dangerous for the common folk. In fact,
there was the paranoia that even your next door neighbor may be one
of them – a communist.

All
of this fear, the perceived threat to freedom and democracy in North
America and the rest of the Western world led to witch hunts à la
McCarthyism and its visual Hollywood representation of horror flicks
with zombies and infectious diseases. Yet strangely enough, the same
spirit with its witch-hunting and finger-pointing paranoia is still
felt and heard across the Western populace even today.

In
fact, the most recent enemy to freedom is the first-mentioned
long-bearded terrorist who more often than not dwells in cages and
wishes to destroy the American dream from a backward and barren
wilderness. In fact, he is trying to come up with the most creative
ways of instilling fear and panic in the West (more deliberately so
than the wicked conniving communist) and is not shy of putting on
explosive underwear to get his point across.

Which
is what, by the way? What is his point again? Media goes along and claims
that the matter is not political but moral and religious. The famed
and infamous “Axis of Evil” demonstrates that there is a moral
dimension to it all and brings back memories of the settlers' fight
against the unruly Indians.

The
West then, backed up and bolstered by mass media, is seen as the good and
righteous standing up courageously for our rights and freedoms all
around the world. I do not claim to diminish or take away the
wondrous accomplishments of the Western world, with its current world
power both economic and ideological, (still) being the United States.

Yet
I wonder if these freedoms can be perceived indeed as so fragile that
they are constantly under attack and that our spokesperson, the
media, always has to look behind its shoulder to see who the next
enemy may be. True confidence and affirmation in one's beliefs and
accomplishments should not be deterred or influenced by such threats
but should face them squarely and boldly in the eye.

In
fact, the consequence of all this fear mongering has led to an
evident decrease, not increase of freedoms and rights.
The paranoia seems to be pointing back to ourselves, while the
powerful media continues to fan our angst and insecurities.

Friday, July 20, 2012

You
have a lot of potential,
we are sometimes told by other people. For instance, the young may
often demonstrate a certain knack for some abilities, be it sports,
writing, painting or playing music. We can often – or at least
think to – spot talent when we encounter it. Then as a parent,
teacher, or friend, we try to encourage these people to capitalize
on their talent, i.e. to become famous and make loads of money from
it.

Yet
the question is whether talent should or needs to be exploited for
monetary and commercial reasons. Some call it vocation, or a gift of God, and when it comes to certain activities, these people are indeed
substantially better than others at it. They seem to born with it,
meaning that we think of it rather as a natural expression than a
hard-earned sweat-and-brow effort.

I
am thinking of Mozart, the fountain that simply brimmed over with
talent and who could, perhaps at will or call, pour out his emotions
in such a light, effortless yet constantly grandiose manner that the
faces of the competition, i.e. other musicians, must have turned
green like Irish pasture.

Although
people make you believe that you can be or do anything under the sun
that pleases you, in reality, there are many limitations. Mine is
painting. I have tried (believe me I have), but not even
stick people turn out to be what I intended or what they are supposed
to be. Of course, I could work hard, take classes, draw and paint the
life out of me, but I will never become the next Picasso (Although
some of Picasso's work may look simple, you still have to know how to
paint first before you can undertake your own sets of experiments.)

But,
to return to my question, why should it be necessary to turn your
talent (talents if you are even luckier) into a goldmine? Is it to
convince the rest of the world that you have talent like on one of
those scouting my country “got talent” shows?

But then again,
true talent or genius has almost always been exposed to mixed,
polarized reviews. (I am still in shock that although some recognized
and acknowledged its merits, Malick's masterpiece The Tree of Life
was booed or walked out upon by others who should actually know better!) All
this may come down, at least superficially, to how much money you can
make, but then that would mean Roland Emmerich has more talent than
Terrence Malick? Really?

To
return to our main issue here, it should be your task or duty to not
let your special talents to go to waste. In other words, to create
what you know and do best and hence to refine and draw upon your
given talents. Then, the pleasure that you have found in the
artistic or athletic endeavor can
(but not must!) be used in order to give pleasure to others,
spectators or listeners. Whether they like it or not depends mostly
on them and may not always reflect upon the quality of your work as
long as you deem the work an honest reflection of yourself and your
capabilities.

But
let us say that the young talented person decides not to profit from
his potential and merely writes and draws in his own corner
ultimately for his own pleasure. We might feel disappointed, in
extreme cases, even get angry with him because he did not reach the
level of fame and fortune we thought he had in him. Why let it all go
to waste?

And
he might respond, well, what does potential really mean? I mean, we
may agree on the matter of talent, but is the fact that I have talent
(more so than you) not enough; do I need to prove it (and show it
off) to others who might not give a damn anyhow? Do I need to suck
the life out of it by making a 9 to 5 profession out of it?

Potential
energy means that the energy contained is within it but we won't know
for sure until it has been released or actualized. The atomic bomb
has the capacity to wreak havoc but we did not fully know this until
we actually dropped it (but we are told that our more modern versions
are many times more devastating than the first ones and we hope to
never find this out!).

That may work for physics, but is it the same for talent? Again, I am
certain that talent is the first step and most of us, not being
Mozart or Picasso, must work hard to fully develop, hone and ripen
those skills. That is then the level of output. If you are keeping it
within, you are letting it go to waste unused, the same way a battery
has stored energy but if not put to the test resembles any other
empty battery ready to be recycled.

At
the same time, it could be like Kafka who kept his work mainly locked
up and wished to have it destroyed after his death. Thank God, his
friend Max Brod did not follow through with it because we would have
been deprived of a great and unique voice of the century.

Yet
nobody (that I know of) would say that Kafka had potential. He was,
in fact, talented and like the aforementioned Mozart or to add Poe to
the mix or actually any other host of geniuses, his actualization as
an artist had little or nothing to do with money or even his
audience; they did what they did best and through this act magically
turned potential into self-actualization.

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Desire
is often accused of being the principal culprit of unhappiness and
suffering. Buddhism ingeniously points the finger at desire as a
human flaw or as obstruction on the strenuous path to enlightenment;
as a result, this Eastern religion / philosophy gets to the point and
lays the blame squarely on our own shoulders.

There
is no need for elaborate stories of original sin, a rebellious evil
superpower causing disruption and pain, but rather to each his or her
own, a karmic explanation of why there is so much pain and suffering
in the world because as aptly expressed in the lyrics of the Radiohead
song "Just": “you do it to yourself.”

Yes,
we need to take a good deep look at ourselves in the mirror, accept
our flaws, weaknesses and shortcomings, most of which can be traced
back to our selfish and self-interested desires. We are always in the
process of desiring this and that. We want a partner for the most
part because we are stung and driven by sexual desire, and once this
desire is fulfilled, we want another person to renew this desire
with.

We
want a good job and when that comes along, we feel unfulfilled and
look for a “better” one. It seems that the only time our desires
will ever give us any rest or respite is when death embraces us.
(Although if you believe in an afterlife, then your soul will most
likely continue to desire things!)

The solution then might be to eliminate desire. Evidently, it is not
desire that gives us happiness as we are never fully satisfied even
if the desire has been quenched. To be happy, then is to have no
desires, to be free from its drags and pulls, to have no need.

But
is this true? There are moments of Zen -- very sparse and too
fleeting – where I get a glimpse of what bliss might possibly feel
like. It is the state where desire is dormant, when I feel completely
at peace and harmony with myself and with others. There is nothing
else I may wish for, nowhere else I would rather be.

It
is an overwhelming feeling, yes. The fact that I am breathing,
walking and seeing feels like a revelation to me. John Lennon comes to
mind as he, comfortably nestled in sheets on a bed, told a series of
baffled reporters how brushing one's teeth is in itself an
accomplishment. It is indeed. There is a certain magic and joy to
doing simple things ... well.

When
I was younger, I had the desire (!) to become a Buddhist monk (after
wanting to be a priest first). I figured that the isolation from the
world would help me gain peace and tranquility in my soul and to be
better able to blend in with the powers that be, the universe and
all.

Siddhartha did it and the quest would have been a worthwhile
one. That my happiness was a mere fraction of the bliss experienced
by the Enlightened One, I am fully aware of. I can imagine a
happiness that is so strong and overwhelming that you would want to
explode.

But
I chose not to. I decided to firmly set foot into and leave a mark
onto this world of pain and suffering, of illusion, to willingly
choose the path of desire. Why? Because say what you may, desire, for
better or worse, means being alive.

It
is that same desire that has driven humanity toward progress in many
ways, the desire to explain the boundaries of possibilities, the
limits of the sky and the universe, the nature of reality. There is,
in my view, nothing wrong with all or any of that.

Desire
itself does not know or have morality. It is as Freud would say
created in the dark abyss of our consciousness, the lustful and
hungry id. It is our animal instinct, binding and tying us to nature.
It wants power, dominance, survival; it can be utilized for good or
cruel purposes.

Look
at sexual desire, for example. Unless you are puritanical at heart
(if you are, then what the hell are you doing reading this post!),
there is nothing inherently “wrong” with sexual desire. I mean,
come on, we are not blocks of wood, so if you are happily married and
desire the stranger next to you, it is OK! I mean there are instances
when we “desire” to kill people, a co-worker, a partner,
government officials or tax representatives. You don't have to feel
bad for having “bad” feelings.

It is not so much our desires that is the problem, but what we choose
to do with them, namely our actions. This is Freud's superego telling
us that it is either morally wrong or simply not a good idea to have
sex in public, especially with a stranger. Sometimes the desire can
topple us, but it needs to be controlled and mastered both for our
and the common good.

So
I am revising my previous statement. It is not desire that causes
suffering, but our lack of mastery over it. This is what Buddhists
may call attachment. If I am strongly attached to my desire,
then I have given up my freedom and am merely a slave to my passions.

Put differently, it is not bad to be wanting to get a better job or
more money as long as this is not your constant obsession, as long as
you are not walking over dead bodies to get there.

Desires
can be selfish, but they can also be used for altruistic motives, the
desire to be helping others. A better income, for instance, could
mean more and better opportunities for one's family.

So,
in a nutshell, don't kill your desires but don't lose control over
them either. Yet most importantly, don't expect your desires to make
you happy. They might (for a while that is), but then again, more
likely, they might not.

Sunday, July 8, 2012

I believe first off
anybody who anywhere under any circumstances commits violence or
cruelty against children is a monster. There is, in my view, no reason
that can justify this since any kind of violence against children is not
only unjust but also immoral. In other words, I cannot see how and why any
person with a sense of morality can knowingly hurt children. It may
seem a commonplace view, but if you look around you, it is still
happening all the time. Scores of children are being mistreated and
abused, physically, sexually and psychologically any- and everywhere
around the world.

It happens both in times
of peace and war. This includes cruelty and killings under the
banner of religion, genocide, racism or what-have-you. This makes the
killing of Afghan children equally despicable and unacceptable as
that of the killing of native Indians and African-American children on the American continent, Jewish children during the Holocaust, as well as Japanese children being maimed and killed by the atomic bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

One might use a
utilitarian argument that the latter deaths may have saved millions
of lives in the long run by ending the war on Japan; yet I believe it
makes it equally immoral as the other cases. Now I need to clarify a
few points before I go along. I am usually against absolute
statements because when it comes to morality, there are always
loopholes and exceptions. It often comes down to an issue of context
and relativity.

I do not, for example,
claim that killing is “wrong.” It may be necessary in certain
circumstances, such as self-defense. Nor do I think that wars are
inevitable; they will always exist because people will find reasons
for waging them. It is the law of the jungle that cannot be changed
and perhaps only be tempered. But even in the case of war, there
should be certain moral imperatives.

I know that the
counter-argument is that it cannot be helped that civilians will die.
It is a price to pay, the unwanted side effects of any war, a
by-product. But as long as the civilians are adults, you may have a
point. They may already be considered part of the nation and culture
and will perhaps (foolish adults that they are) be ready to fight or
even die for their country and their ideals.

Yet again nothing
justifies the killing of children. The argument that children will
grow up to be adults later and hence to extend one's hatred or
dislike for a group of people to include them is utterly absurd.
People may have their prejudices, yet children, because of their
still unformed and innocent nature should not be mixed up in these
messy “adult” situations. In other words, children should be left
out of any issues of discrimination. Whether they are black, Asian,
Indian etc should not hide the overriding fact that they are
essentially children.

Also by children, I mean
anyone under the age of 14. I know that puts teenagers in a
vulnerable spot and I do not condone any violence on them. However,
at that point, they may have enough judgment on their own and may be
aware of the difference between good and bad actions. They may choose
to do violence onto others. They are often, somewhat unfortunately
and awkwardly, mini-versions of adults and may even decide to join a
war whether they are fully aware of its consequences or not.

By violence, I also do not
talk only about killing, but any form of it. That includes the
practice of corporal punishment, the hitting and belittling of
children, the purposeful cause of pain. What is seen as “good”
forms of education or as straightening and toughening up
children is, in fact, causing harm and damage to their fragile
and developing psychology. It, of course, includes any willful sexual activity and
exploitation. Having sex with a child is morally wrong and is done by
people who lack conscience and feelings. Pedophilia is never ever
acceptable under any circumstances whatsoever.

To sum up, one's “beef”
is and should be only with adults. If we cannot help it, then we may,
if we really think we have to, discriminate, use violence, wage wars,
take revenge on other like-minded adults. But to go after children,
to kidnap them, to hurt them in any way is morally wrong and anyone
who breaks this rule deserves the harshest punishment because they
are hurting our most precious beings in this world, the very fabric
and essence of our humanity, our children.